Because People in power are Stupid:The cost of the Iraq war was $3.2 to 4 trillion.Did we sell war bonds to pay for this like in WW2? Did we ask Americans to sacrifice, to do without nylon or steel?

No, we gave the richest Americans a Tax Cut.

So when Ryan says stuff like:

"So we do not have a debt crisis right now, but, we see it coming. We know it's irrefutably happening"

It was caused by him. He knows it's real because he helped make it happen.

Pretty much this. The Republicans are 100% responsible for the sh*t they now think is a crisis. None of it WAS a crisis until Obama was elected, after 8-10 years of running up the debt. Eff those guys and eff them forever. Eff you if you vote for one.

Every two years, we see some new 'crisis' from republicans that proves that America is on it's last legs, and if they don't get elected, we'll dissolve into a thousand year darkness. According to them, this country is so exceptional it can have one foot in the grave for decades and just keep on tickin'.

NewportBarGuy:OgreMagi: Anyone who claims we can continue to go deeper into debt with no consequences has obviously not been paying attention to history or current world events. Multiple countries in Europe believed they could spend forever and are now discovering how untrue that is. Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, etc. They're all farked.

At the moment Germany is paying to keep the EU from completely falling apart, but they're starting to get annoyed at having to pay for everyone else's mistakes. Trust me, you don't want to annoy the Germans. That never ends well.

We're heading down the same road as the EU.

Do any of those countries possess the Reserve Currency? No.Do any of those countries have the economic might of the US? No.Do any of thos...

Jesus. Stop regurgitating sh*t you hear on talk radio. It's just sad.

Well, I'll tell you my theory.

So in the US situation, the worst scenario we could face is hyper massive inflation. We wouldn't go "bankrupt" we would just have worthless currency and other countries would stop buying our bonds, and stop using the USD as the reserve currency. You would have $100 for a double cheeseburger at McDonalds.

The 1% that are funding political campaigns actually want this, and are actively seeking this outcome. They're invested offshore and in illiquid assets such as property, stock of international companies, and so forth. Instruments that will weather a massive devaluation of US currency. And even if it not, doesn't matter... if your 500 million dollars is suddenly worth 100 million dollars, doesn't matter to your lifestyle. The reason they want this to happen is basically to make the rest of us economic slaves. Regular people will have to sell their houses, get rid of their cars, live in tiny apartments and eat rice and beans. It will "save the environment" because the 99% will have no carbon footprint, and the 1% will still be flying around on private jets paid for by tax loopholes unavailable to you. The 1% then have infinite power. Right now, they control all the "stuff" and have gold plated yachts, but "regular people" still have autonomy. They see power and wealth has a zero-sum game and won't stop until we're all literal slaves, because then they "win."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'bankrupt future' perspective is based on extrapolating the costs for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security into the future at the current rate of expanding medical costs, with the current rate of expanding GDP, pointing thirty years in the future to the point where Insurance companies are saying a bandaid costs a hundred dollars, and then saying, 'SEE? THEY'RE GOING TO GO BANKRUPT!'

Karac:DamnYankees: But, Ryan added, a crisis is "irrefutably" on its way.

Yes, because you are so reliable about what is and is not refutable.

Every two years, we see some new 'crisis' from republicans that proves that America is on it's last legs, and if they don't get elected, we'll dissolve into a thousand year darkness. According to them, this country is so exceptional it can have one foot in the grave for decades and just keep on tickin'.

The people who have been pushing for austerity and cutting the debt were saying - in 2009 - that if we didn't act immediately our interest rates would explode within 2 years. Bowles Simpsons said this. They said explicitely - 2 years.

OgreMagi:Anyone who claims we can continue to go deeper into debt with no consequences has obviously not been paying attention to history or current world events. Multiple countries in Europe believed they could spend forever and are now discovering how untrue that is. Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, etc. They're all farked.

At the moment Germany is paying to keep the EU from completely falling apart, but they're starting to get annoyed at having to pay for everyone else's mistakes. Trust me, you don't want to annoy the Germans. That never ends well.

We're heading down the same road as the EU.

We're de-centralizing our currency and throwing the full weight of our economy behind nations that have been faltering for hundreds of years?

We should stop that. Mexico can keep it's pesos or whatever. I heard they used dollars in Canada, I hope they are their own dollars. I'd hate to think they're using US dollars up in our hat.

m00:A better question you could have asked instead, is "why did the anti-Bush sentiment amongst the Republican Party votes only become an organized movement after Bush left office." But as I said, you're not really interested in having a conversation, are you?

re-read that, and pretend somebody else typed that to you.

would that person seem really inclined towards conversation or would they instead seem as if they were a textual fart on a griddle just trying not to get pinned down?

to me, it looks like the latter, but that's half the fun. perspective is a helluva drug.

Don't Troll Me Bro!:So you mean to tell us that MSNBC just ignored several years of opportunities to point out that not even Bush's own supporters and political party were behind him? Please... He went from 47.9% of the popular vote on his first election to 50.7% during the second, and the second time around there was a much higher voter turnout. In fact, in terms of raw votes he got 12 million more votes on his second election, which equated to about 20% more people showing up to the polls and casting their vote for him. And somehow you want us to believe that all this dissent you speak of simply wasn't noticed by anyone because it wasn't being covered by MSM outlets? All those liberally-biased lamestream main MSM media outlets? They all dropped the ball on years of making sure all them liberals knew that not even Republicans were happy with what Bush was doing? You've got to be shiatting us..... Apparently you forgot about the near decade of lockstep "if you don't support a wartime President than you can git aht my Murika!!!"

I think you are projecting other people's arguments onto me. MSNBC only pretends to be liberal. They are owned by GE, a corporation that not only pays no taxes, but actually receives taxpayer money from the government. The whole "being liberal" schtick is a business model -- but MSNBC (and same goes for FOX for that matter) aren't really interested in serious journalism. They are interested in securing profits for their parent companies.

The fact is, the Bush administration had a very evil rule which is it only gave access to news organizations that "played ball" on every single issue. So, by and large, news organizations played ball. GE doesn't give a shiat, they took their taxpayer handout and kept their mouth shut.

The Why Not Guy:Bonus points if they spoke out against the crazy-expensive Iraq invasion.

Good luck.

Oh, and double bonus points if they fashioned a hat from tea-bags and stood in a public area holding a poorly-composed sign. Because the Tea Partiers were just as angry at Bush's spending as they were at Obama's, right? Right?

m00:I'm sorry, I didn't know you personally knew every conservative on the Internet. And yes, I was on Fark during the Bush years (my account was created 2003) and yours was created in 2006. So I think I have a bit more of a handle on places like Fark during the Bush years, considering you were barely on Fark for them. A lot of conservatives, at the time, didn't like his domestic policies. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what a conservative believes.

Ok, since opposition to Bush administration spending was so common among Republicans, could you cite... lets say two national level Republicans who spoke out against it? Bonus points if they spoke out against the crazy-expensive Iraq invasion.

When Clinton had left office, the Treasury came screaming to bush that they'd lost their ability to control the money supply because the amount of T-bills and other government debt instruments in circulation were too low.

So basically what the treasury said is that we need to have 1-2% of GDP in T-bills in circulation at any time to be able to have control levers into monetary policy.

If you really think that there is a debt crisis, Then you should also know that 'entitlements' of social security and Medicare are NOT responsible, since they are both totally funded by their own 6% 'flat' tax on the incomes of everyone making under 120,000$ annually. In fact, this flat tax has been providing congress with EXTRA money beyond other methods of taxation, as SS, Medicare and Medicaid have cost LESS than the 6% flat tax (on everyone's income under the $120,000 amount).

Congress has been taking the surplus out of the medicare fund by instructing the trustee to 'invest' the leftover money in treasury bills and treasury bonds.

MattStafford:DamnYankees: MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.

Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.

A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.

Your view is to tank the economy now because the economy might eventually tank if we continue what we're doing forever. Everyone else's view is continue what we're doing UNTIL the economy is more secure footing. The latter group is guessing the economy becoming on more secure footing under the current policies will happen before it tanks the economy. Choosing the course of action that doesn't tank the economy NOW seems the more sane approach.

MattStafford:DamnYankees: MattStafford: Eventually you get called out on it, and when that happens it is going to be very painful.

Eventually we're all dead. This is not a useful metric.

A policy will eventually destroy the country. In your view, we should continue that policy because, hey, it was going to happen eventually.

The policy of 'Give the 1% every cent we can squeeze out of the middle and lower classes' (also known as 'supply-side economics') will destroy America a HELL of a lot quicker than the national debt.

And of course, all this biatching ignores the fact that the deficit (and thus the debt) skyrocketed under Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr., while Obama and Clinton shrank the deficit quite a bit, and Obama continues to do so at a ridiculous rate. Republican administrations and their policies are demonstrably, and significantly, worse for the economy. The sooner we get them the fark OUT of government, the sooner America can recover from them.

OgreMagi:Anyone who claims we can continue to go deeper into debt with no consequences has obviously not been paying attention to history or current world events. Multiple countries in Europe believed they could spend forever and are now discovering how untrue that is. Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, etc. They're all farked.

At the moment Germany is paying to keep the EU from completely falling apart, but they're starting to get annoyed at having to pay for everyone else's mistakes. Trust me, you don't want to annoy the Germans. That never ends well.

We're heading down the same road as the EU.

Do any of those countries possess the Reserve Currency? No.Do any of those countries have the economic might of the US? No.Do any of thos...

Anyone who claims we can continue to go deeper into debt with no consequences has obviously not been paying attention to history or current world events. Multiple countries in Europe believed they could spend forever and are now discovering how untrue that is. Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, etc. They're all farked.

At the moment Germany is paying to keep the EU from completely falling apart, but they're starting to get annoyed at having to pay for everyone else's mistakes. Trust me, you don't want to annoy the Germans. That never ends well.

I would recommend a tax on legitimate rape. Logically, if you don't like something (like women getting raped), you tax it to reduce it. It would have to be a flat tax, because that's more fair and we can't have moochers in the system. I would also recommend that if the girl can provide a receipt proving she is now armed because of the rape, that she can deduct the cost of the new weapon from the tax, dollar for dollar.

There, I just balanced the budget AND appeased all three windowlicking parts of the Republican party. Let's have the House vote on it.

Step 1: Create a massive amount of "strategic debt" to try and scare people into defunding things you don't like that most people like.Step 2: Blame the other guys for the "strategic debt".Step 3: Freak out about the "strategic debt"Step 4: Fail to defund the things you don't like that most people like.Step 5: Pretend the "strategic debt" doesn't exist and hasn't caused a financial crisis.Step 6: Continue to lose elections until your party is no more than an uncomfortable memory of how NOT to do things.